pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 8 replies \ @anon 27 Feb \ parent \ on: AJ Towns censoring on Delving Bitcoin to cover Bitcoin Core backdoors ? bitcoin
You had it right. He did receive a letter from chaincode labs which is a separate case to this one. I only see one threat of action in this discussion and it comes from the OP and can be found in other comments.
I don't read it that way. If the archives are correct he was accused of making legal threats before making any statement that can be construed as one.
reply
Yes, my original post on Delving Bitcoin was to raise awareness on any long-term risk we could have to have design development process happening behind “close-doors” especially related about IP.
When we see how CSW is making claims based on decade-old communications, and some of the very OG developers (e.g Sirius) have publish their own personal archives to bring clarity, I sincerely think we should minimize private technical conversations only for grounded reasons.
reply
How can you argue it's a separate case to this one when the discussion is about whether or not Bitcoin development is being corrupted by involvement of a corporation who sent a letter from their lawfirm a year prior to the discussion in question.
https://github.com/jamesob/delving-bitcoin-archive/blob/master/archive/rendered-topics/2024-02-February/2024-02-22-workgroup-lifecycle-id598.md
reply
Is this as simple as at that github link the OP stating, "At the very least, people engaging in such private communication channels should consult lawyers in the main major juridictions, if such communication practice is not specially tainting their responsibilities in case of future FOSS software defect in some way." in a genuine way of trying to say "hey I don't know if this is legally acceptable with this software license maybe we should ask a lawyer" and getting misconstrued as a direct legal threat and all spinning out of control from there? Could most of this just be a misunderstanding that got out of hand? However when I read that it definitely feels to me like a legal threat, but maybe it was just a well intentioned question that wasn't well phrased?
reply
"hey I don't know if this is legally acceptable with this software license maybe we should ask a lawyer
I had especially in mind the CSW’s database case, where CSW is making claims based on a sui generis rights recognized by the EU laws.
Whatever we can think of the EU laws legitimacy in this area, seeing how they can be leveraged against the interest of the Bitcoin ecosystem, especially we should be more careful of marking “original work” in critical Bitcoin areas the public domain. Systematically closing the doors to future CSW’s like judicial contests.
reply
Comes off as more of a warning to potential liability than a threat.
reply
To make clear is this correct: the proper understanding is the OP received a Cease & Desist Letter in 2017 from Chaincode. Separately also now in 2024 OP is also saying lawyers need to be consulted - but not directly threatening legal action or sending a letter directly from a lawyer?
Sorry this is hard to follow. Just trying to get this straight. Not trying to give anyone a hard time.
reply
The year I received a cease-and-desist letter from Chaincode was 2023 (last year) not 2017.
reply